CIVILIAN COMPLAINT
REVIEW BOARDStatus ReportJanuary-June 2007
New York City
Michael R. Bloomberg, MayorFranklin H. Stone, Esq., Chair
CCRB Mission and Values
The New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) is an independent and non-police mayoral agency. It isempowered to receive, investigate, hear, make findings and recommend action on complaints against New York Citypolice officers which allege the use of excessive or unnecessary force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or the use of offen-sive language. The board’s investigative staff, which is composed entirely of civilian employees, conducts investigationsin an impartial fashion. The board forwards its findings to the police commissioner. In fulfillment of this mission, the boardhas pledged:
• To encourage members of the community to file complaints when they feel they have been victims of police mis-conduct.
• To encourage all parties involved in a complaint to come forward and present whatever evidence they may have.
• To investigate each allegation thoroughly and impartially.
• To examine carefully each investigative report and to ensure that all possible efforts have been made to resolve thecomplaint.
• To make objective determinations on the merits of each case.
• To recommend disciplinary actions that are fair and appropriate, if and when the investigative findings show thatmisconduct occurred.
• To respect the rights of civilians and officers.
• To engage in community outreach throughout New York City to educate the general public concerning the agency’spurpose and the services provided and to respond to the comments and questions of the public concerning issues rel-evant to the agency’s operation.
• To report patterns of misconduct uncovered during the course of investigations and review of complaints to thepolice commissioner.
• To report relevant issues and policy matters coming to the board’s attention to the police commissioner.
TA B L E O F CO N T E N T S
Letter from the Chair 3
Who We Are 4
What We Do 6
Complaint Activity 9
Agency Productivity 12
Complaint Dispositions 14
L E T T E R F R O M T H E C H A I R
Page 2
CCRB Status ReportJanuary-June 2007
Civilian Complaint Review Board Status Report January-June 2007
L E T T E R F R O M T H E C H A I R
Thank you for taking the time to read the CCRB’s January-June 2007 semiannual report. For the third
year, this report presents statistics on the agency’s activities in a visual, user-friendly manner. We
hope it makes clear some of the trends in complaint activity and accomplishments by our agency.
The first half of 2007 was a significant time for the CCRB. Our complaint rate continued to rise, fueled by a
dramatic increase in the number of stops conducted by police officers, first documented by the CCRB in
2005 and confirmed by the Police Department in 2006. We were able to hire a team of attorneys who will
evaluate investigations and advise investigators of legal issues in their cases. The attorneys will be partic-
ularly helpful as the number of stop-and-frisk cases increases, since these cases require legal analysis. This year the CCRB also
participated in town hall meetings organized by the City Council on police accountability and at the Police Academy’s Immersion
Training program for all graduating recruits in June. We appreciate being included in the ongoing public debate on issues that are of
concern to all New Yorkers, such as the increase in the stop and frisk rate and the use of police force.
Most importantly, the CCRB continued to conduct thorough, fair, and timely investigations. While the long-term increase in complaints
has had some impact on our performance, we are closing more cases every year than ever before, and doing so without sacrificing
quality or timeliness. This success speaks to the devoted work of our skilled investigators and our dedicated board members.
We continue to see, however, a discrepancy between our disciplinary recommendations on cases and their actual outcome at the
police department. As this report shows, the rate at which the department has chosen to not discipline officers whom the CCRB found
committed misconduct is at an all-time high. We continue to work with the department to resolve our differences, and look forward to
seeing progress in this matter.
On the whole, 2007 continues to be a successful year for our agency, and I look forward to our progress continuing into 2008.
Page 3
W H O W E A R E
Agency Operations and Resources
The Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) is a city agency independent of the New York City Police Department (NYPD)that investigates and mediates complaints of misconduct members of the public file against NYPD police officers.
The board is comprised of thirteen members who must reflect the diversity of the city’s population. The city council designates fiveboard members (one from each borough), the police commissioner designates three, and the mayor designates five, including thechair. Board members review all investigations conducted by the staff and make findings on every allegation raised by complaints.The board makes disciplinary recommendations to the police department when it finds that an officer committed misconduct.
The board hires the Executive Director who in turn is responsible for the agency’s daily operations and the hiring and supervisionof the agency’s all-civilian staff. The Investigations Division, comprised of eight teams, each led by a manager with a minimum often years of relevant experience, conducts the agency’s investigations. The Administrative Division’s staff educates the publicabout the CCRB, coordinates mediations, produces and analyzes statistics, processes cases for board review, manages theagency’s computer systems, facilities, and vehicle fleet, and performs budgeting, purchasing, personnel, and clerical services.
The CCRB’s final budget for fiscal year 2007, which ended onJune 30, 2007, was $10,872,914, which supported a full-timeheadcount of 192: approximately 147 investigators and 45 non-investigative employees (including the agency’s executive staff).The CCRB recently added a First Deputy Executive Directorposition in order to allow the Executive Director more time tohandle broad policy issues, and five Assistant Deputy ExecutiveDirectors for Investigations to further enhance the quality ofinvestigations.
Page 4
CCRB Status ReportJanuary-June 2007
CCRB Organizational Chart
Page 5
Deputy Executive DirectorAdministration
Deputy Executive DirectorInvestigations
AgencyCounsel
Director ofCommunications
Director ofOperations
Director ofManagementInformation
Systems
Director ofCase
Management
Director ofMediation
Director ofPayroll andPersonnel
Eight Investigative Teams
Each team is supervised by amanager, a supervisor, and an
assistant supervisor
ManagementInformation
Systems Unit
CaseManagement
Unit
PersonnelUnit
MediationUnit
Members of the Board
Mayoral Designees City Council Designees Police Commissioner DesigneesFranklin H. Stone, Esq. (chair) Dennis deLeon, Esq. (Manhattan) Lawrence Loesch, Esq.Dr. Mohammad Khalid James Donlon, Esq (Staten Island) Jules A. Martin, Esq.Carol B. Liebman, Esq. William F. Kuntz II, Esq. (Brooklyn) Tosano SimonettiVictor Olds, Esq. Singee L. Lam (Queens)
Youngik Yoon, Esq. (Bronx)
Executive Director
First Deputy Executive Director
Five Assistant DeputyExecutive Directors for
Investigations
Director ofResearch and
StrategicInitiatives
Outreach UnitOperations
Unit
Director ofRecruitmentand Training
W H A T W E D O
Jurisdiction and Case Processing
Members of the public can file complaints directly with the CCRB through the city’s 311 system, via the CCRB website, by fax,
or in person at the CCRB’s office. The CCRB also receives complaints forwarded from elected officials, the NYPD, and other
agencies. Though many different law enforcement agencies operate within the confines of New York City, the CCRB only has the
authority to investigate complaints filed against NYPD officers. It does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints filed against
civilian employees of the NYPD, such as traffic enforcement agents and school safety officers. The CCRB can investigate com-
plaints involving four types of allegations: force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, and offensive language.
With the assistance of the Mediation Unit, the investigator assigned to
the complaint determines whether the case is eligible for mediation. If
both the complainant and officer voluntarily agree to mediate, the
agency generally closes these cases as mediated or mediation attempt-
ed.
CCRB investigators make significant efforts to contact and gain the
cooperation of the complainant or alleged victim(s) of a complaint in
order to obtain statements. However, a large number of these individu-
als either cannot be located, refuse to cooperate, or withdraw their com-
plaints. The board closes such complaints as truncated investigations,
since the agency does not conduct a full investigation without the partici-
pation of the complainant or alleged victim. With the exception of these
and mediated cases, the investigator conducts a thorough and impartial
investigation of every complaint.
Types of CCRB Allegations
The CCRB has jurisdiction over New York City PoliceDepartment officers. The agency has the authority to investi-gate complaints falling within any of four categories: force,abuse of authority, discourtesy, and offensive language.
Force refers to the use of unnecessary or excessive force, upto and including deadly force.
Abuse of authority refers to improper street stops, frisks, search-es, the issuance of retaliatory summonses, and unwarrantedthreats of arrest and other such actions.
Discourtesy refers to inappropriate behavior or language, includ-ing rude or obscene gestures, vulgar words, and curses.
Offensive language refers to slurs, derogatory remarks, and/orgestures based upon a person’s sexual orientation, race, ethnic-ity, religion, gender or disability.
Page 6
CCRB Status ReportJanuary-June 2007
The investigator interviews the com-plainant, alleged victims, witnesses,and police officers, obtains documen-tary evidence such as police reportsand medical records, and researchesapplicable NYPD and legal guidelines.The investigator evaluates the evi-dence and writes a closing report.Supervisors review the investigativefile and forward it to the board. Inappropriate cases the complainantand officer may agree to mediation.
Mediation allows the complainant and offi-cer to voluntarily meet face-to-face andattempt to reconcile the issues raised by theincident in a safe and secure atmosphere. Itis a non-disciplinary process and what issaid during the mediation session is confi-dential. The mediation is conducted by atrained, outside mediator hired by theCCRB, who cannot impose a settlement.
Step One: Investigation
If a complainant and/or alleged victimcannot be located, refuses to providea statement, or withdraws the com-plaint, the board will close the caseas truncated and investigation of thecomplaint will not occur.
Step Two: Board Review
Except for cases that are successfullymediated, the board must make findingson every complaint. Following a full inves-tigation, board members review the casefile, vote on each allegation raised by thecomplaint, and attempt to determine ifmisconduct occurred. When the boarddetermines that one or more officers com-mitted an act of misconduct, it forwardsthe case to the NYPD with a disciplinaryrecommendation. After cases are closed,the CCRB notifies the complainant,alleged victims, and subject officers of itsfindings by letter.
Step Three: The Police Department
Cases in which the board finds that an offi-cer committed misconduct are assignedwithin the NYPD to the DepartmentAdvocate’s Office for review and process-ing. The NYPD may determine that the offi-cer merits no discipline, instructions(retraining), or a command discipline (theloss of up to ten vacation days). It can alsoseek a more serious penalty against theofficer by serving the officer with chargesand specifications. Non-probationary offi-cers have the right to challenge the imposi-tion of discipline in administrative hearingsconducted by the Deputy Commissioner forTrials or his or her assistants. In all cases,the Police Commissioner has the authorityto decide whether discipline is imposedand the level of discipline.
The Complaint Process
Every complaint the CCRB receives is entered into the agency’s computerized tracking system. Investigative team man-
agers and supervisors review all complaints to determine whether or not the allegations raised by the complaint fall within
the CCRB’s jurisdiction. If the complaint falls outside of the CCRB’s jurisdiction, the CCRB refers the complaint to the appropri-
ate agency; if the complaint falls within the CCRB’s jurisdiction, the complaint is processed as described in the flow chart.
Page 7
CCRB Status ReportJanuary-June 2007
Investigation Outcomes
After completing all investigative steps, the investigator drafts a detailed closing report that summarizes the evidence gathered
during the investigation, analyzes the evidence, and reviews applicable NYPD Patrol Guide procedures and administrative
law. When the investigator’s supervisors are satisfied with the investigation and report, they forward the investigative file to the
board, together with a recommendation as to the appropriate disposition of each allegation.
Complaints often raise multiple allegations and board members, who generally meet in panels of three, are responsible for deter-
mining dispositions on all allegations. Each panel consists of one board member designated by the mayor, one by the city council,
and one by the police commissioner. Findings on an allegation are based on a preponderance of the evidence. Panel members
vote on allegations and can reach a decision by a two-to-one vote.
Instead of closing a case, the panel can also request that the staff con-
duct additional investigation or refer the case to the entire board for
review.
Board dispositions of allegations that are fully investigated are divided
into two categories: findings on the merits and findings not on the merits.
When the board makes a conclusive determination about whether an offi-
cer committed misconduct, it makes a finding on the merits. If it cannot
determine whether an officer committed misconduct, it cannot make such
a finding. Any case in which the board substantiates at least one allega-
tion is forwarded to the police department, which has exclusive authority
to impose discipline against police officers.
Findings on the Merits
Substantiated: The subject officer committed the act charged inthe allegation and committed misconduct. The board usuallymakes a disciplinary recommendation to the police commissioner.
Exonerated: The subject officer committed the act alleged, butsuch action was lawful and proper.
Unfounded: The subject officer did not commit the alleged act ofmisconduct.
Findings Not on the Merits
Unsubstantiated: There is insufficient evidence to substantiate,exonerate or unfound the allegation.
Officer(s) unidentified: The agency could not identify thesubject(s) of the alleged misconduct.
Miscellaneous: Usually, the subject of the allegation is no longer amember of the New York City Police Department.
Page 8
C O M P L A I N T A C T I V I T Y
Where and How Complaints Were Filed
Since 2002, the number of complaints of police misconduct filed with the CCRB has increased dramatically. However, in the
past twelve months, the increase has slowed, and in the first six months of 2007, the agency received about the same num-
ber of complaints as in the first half of 2006.
Still, the complaint rate is high by historic standards, and the compound effect of five years of increases has put a strain on the
board and the agency’s investigative staff. The 3,869 complaints received in the first half of 2007 represent a 70% increase over
the first half of 2002, when the agency received only 2,274 complaints. Although the agency is investigating cases more efficiently
than ever, the open docket continues to grow.
While it may never be possible to identify all of the
reasons behind the complaint increase, the agency
was able to definitively identify two contributing fac-
tors. The implementation of the 311 system in
March of 2003 had a significant impact, as did the
dramatic increase in the number of stops, ques-
tions, and frisks the NYPD reported conducting,
which is detailed on page 11.
However, these factors do not rule out other possi-
ble causes for the increase. Typically the complaint
rate is a result of multiple factors, none of which
necessarily play a dominant role.
Where and How CCRB Complaints Were FiledJanuary 2004-June 2007
38693790
3874
3476
331030503146
28032753
2338
2274
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Jan-Jun
2002
July-Dec2002
Jan-Jun
2003
July-Dec2003
Jan-Jun
2004
July-Dec2004
Jan-Jun
2005
July-Dec2005
Jan-Jun
2006
July-Dec2006
Jan-Jun
2007
Complaints forwardedby another agency
Filed directly withNYPD—non-telephone
Filed directly withNYPD—telephone
Filed directly withCCRB—non-telephone
Filed directly withCCRB—telephone
Page 9
CCRB Status ReportJanuary-June 2007
Complaint Density, by Precinct
The map below shows the distribution of CCRB complaints based on the location of the incident that led to the complaint. Note
that the map does not correct for population density, precinct size, or crime statistics. As has been the case in recent years,
two clusters of precincts, one in Central Brooklyn (the 67th, 70th, 73rd, and 75th) and one in the south and west Bronx (the 43rd,
44th, 46th, and 52nd) led the city in complaints.
Neighboring precincts that have significant differences in their complaint
rates offer an opportunity to look for what practices can best reduce
police complaints. While the 40th precinct and the 48th precinct are near
each other in the Bronx, and while crime rates in the two precincts are
similar, the number of complaints filed in the 40th precinct dropped by
35% from the first half of 2006 to the first half of 2007, while the number
of complaints filed in the 48th increased by 78%, the highest rate of any
precinct citywide. Further study by the police department could help
determine what policies in these precincts may have led to the discrep-
ancy.
Other precincts also saw major drops in their complaint rates even as
rates citywide remained high. The 50th and 66th precinct in the Bronx
and the 94th and the 109th in Queens saw decreases in their complaint
rates of over 40%; while these precincts had low complaint rates to
begin with, the change over time is significant.
Precincts with significant percentage increases in complaints filed
include the 13th (69%), the 41st (48%), the 7th and the 102nd (both
45%).Page 10
Stop, Question, and Frisk
In February of 2007, the NYPD released data on the number of documented stop, question, and frisks in 2006, showing that offi-cers had recorded more than five times as many stops in 2006 as in 2002. During that period, the number of complaints lodged
with the CCRB increased by 66%; the agency received three times as many complaints about improper stops, frisks, and search-es in 2006 as in 2002.
A close analysis of the NYPD stop and frisk data for 2006 and 2007 alongside CCRB complaint data shows that while there is aclose relationship between the number of documented stops and CCRB complaints, that relationship changed in the fourth quarterof 2006. For the first nine months of 2006, the CCRB received one complaint for every 218 documented stops reported by theNYPD. For the last quarter of 2006 and the first half of 2007, the agency received more complaints relative to the reported numberof stops -- one complaint for every 178 stops.
There is no question that the number of stops reportedby the NYPD has an effect on the complaint rate. Thenumber of stops reported each quarter decreases in2006 and spikes in the first quarter of 2007 beforedecreasing again; CCRB complaints also dropped inthe second quarter of 2007. The reason for the changein the ratio of documented stops to CCRB complaintsin the fourth quarter of 2006, however, is less clear.
Since the data released by the NYPD go back only toJanuary of 2006, a true long-term analysis is not yetpossible. In the future, continuing to study the numberof stops that officers record as it relates to the com-plaint rate can help paint a more detailed picture of thedepartment’s stop and frisk policy and practice.
CCRB Status ReportJanuary-June 2007
NYPD Reported Stop and Frisks Compared toCCRB Stop, Question, Frisk, or Search Complaints
January 2006-June 2007
117,415
130,050
136,851
124,224134,029
113,945
627
764
661
640
596
556
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
Jan-March2006
April-June2006
July-Sept2006
Oct-Dec2006
Jan-March2007
April-June2007
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
Reported NYPD"Stop, Question andFrisk" forms filed
CCRB Complaints of"Stop," "Question,""Frisk," or "Search"
Page 11
A G E N C Y P R O D U C T I V I T Y
Case Closures
Even though the complaint increase slowed dur-
ing the first half of 2007, the long-term effect of
high complaint rates has had an impact on the
CCRB’s performance. After four years in which case
closure rates consistently increased, the CCRB
finally saw the effects of its rising docket in the sec-
ond half of 2006. In the last six months of the year,
the agency closed 3,259 cases, 27% fewer than the
4,142 closed in the first half of the year.
The agency was able to rebound in 2007, but the
continued high complaint rate kept it from decreas-
ing the size of the open docket. While the CCRB
closed 3,868 cases in the first half of the year, it
received 3,903 complaints, causing the docket to
increase by 35 cases.
Starting July 1, 2007, the CCRB began upgrading aging computer equipment and hiring attorneys to oversee its case processing,
all of which should have some impact on its ability to close cases. However, if the agency continues to receive an historically high
number of complaints without an increase to the size of its investigative staff, the improvements in performance seen from 2002
through 2006 will begin to erode.
Total Number of Full Investigations, Truncated Investigations, and Mediation Unit Closures Compared to Complaints Received
January 2004-June 2007
1,2921,152 1,249
1,431 1,5091,172
1,386
1,572
1,5921,651
1,996
2,498
1,960
2,366
131 79 77 111 135 127 116
3,1463,050
3,311
3,473
3,874
3,790
3,903
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Jan-Jun2004
July-Dec2004
Jan-Jun2005
July-Dec2005
Jan-Jun2006
July-Dec2006
Jan-Jun2007
Truncatedinvestigations
Fullinvestigations
Mediation Unitclosures
Complaintsreceived
Page 12
CCRB Status ReportJanuary-June 2007
Case Completion Time
In the first half of 2007, it took an average of 303
days, or nine months, for the agency and board to
complete and review a full investigation. Full investi-
gations took 8% longer than in the last half of 2006,
and longer than in any reporting period since 2001.
As the agency continues to struggle with a growing
caseload, closing cases in a timely manner will be an
ongoing concern.
The chart at right breaks out the time it takes the
agency to investigate the case from the time it takes
the board to review it. The investigative division took,
on average, 230 days to complete a full investigation
that the board closed in the first half of 2007 – this
represents an increase of six days over the average
in 2006, but is actually lower than the averages from
2004 through 2005. On the other hand, the board took an average of 73 days to review cases the agency submitted, 30% longer
than in the second half of 2006 and longer than any other reporting period.
The number of board members who can review cases is fixed by the city charter; as the number of cases that the agency
receives, and therefore investigates, has grown dramatically over the past four years, the number of cases forwarded to the board
for review has grown as well. The decrease in timeliness demonstrates that the agency is seeing a bottleneck effect as the board
panels try to review an ever-increasing number of cases.
Days to Complete a Full Investigation January 2004-June 2007
228241 241
224 223 224 230
42
51 5369 59 56
73
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jan-Jun2004
July-Dec2004
Jan-Jun2005
July-Dec2005
Jan-Jun2006
July-Dec2006
Jan-Jun2007
Board review andclosure
InvestigationsDivision'ssubmission toboard
270
292 294 293
282 280
303
Page 13
Of the 1,386 full investigations the CCRB conducted from January through June 2007, the board made a finding on the merits
(substantiated, exonerated or unfounded, as represented by the three shades of blue on the chart) in 64% of the allegations,
consistent with the average rate since January 2004, and a slight increase from the 63% rate for 2006. Even as the CCRB faces
an increase in its workload, the quality of its investigations has remained high.
The board substantiated at least one allegation of misconduct in 147 of the cases, representing 11% of all cases closed after a full
investigation. Within these cases, the board substantiated a total of 350 allegations of misconduct, representing 6% of the allega-
tions closed following a full investigation.
In the fully investigated cases, the board found
18% of the allegations to be unfounded, exon-
erated the officers in 40% of the allegations
and closed 26% as “unsubstantiated,” meaning
the investigation did not produce enough evi-
dence to prove or disprove the allegation by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Since July of 2006, the CCRB succeeded in
reducing the percentage of fully investigated
allegations closed as “Officer Unidentified.”
The percentage had climbed up to 11% for the
first half of 2006, but has dropped to 8% for the
first half of 2007.
C O M P L A I N T D I S P O S I T I O N S
Page 14
Board Dispositions
Dispositions of All Allegations in Full InvestigationsJanuary 2004-June 2007*
6%6%5%7%7%11%12%
18%18%
20%22%19%19%16%
40%
38%
37%37%
36%35%35%
26%
26%
24%23%
25%25%26%
8%
9%
11%8%
10%8%
8%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%3%
4%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Jan-Jun2004
July-Dec2004
Jan-Jun2005
July-Dec2005
Jan-Jun2006
July-Dec2006
Jan-Jun2007
Miscellaneous
Officer unidentified
Unsubstantiated
Exonerated
Unfounded
Substantiated
* Since the percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number, it some reporting periods the total percentage is great than 100%.
CCRB Status ReportJanuary-June 2007
Mediation is a process where the civilian and officer
meet with a trained, neutral mediator to address the
issues raised by the complaint. The mediators guide dis-
cussion between police officers and civilians to help them
resolve their complaint. Cases are closed as “mediated”
when the parties agree that the issues raised by the com-
plaint have been resolved. The agency closes cases as
“mediation attempted” when the complainant and officer
agreed to mediate but the civilian fails to appear for the
mediation twice without good cause, or fails to respond to
phone calls, emails, or letters to set up such a session.
While the CCRB has placed a great deal of emphasis on
its mediation program, and has found that complainants
that choose mediation are often more satisfied than those
who chose investigation, the number of cases the agency
has been able to mediate has declined since early 2006. In the first half of 2007, the agency successfully mediated only 51 cases,
fewer than either of the past two periods.
The CCRB continues to look for ways to increase the number of mediations it conducts. While the CCRB’s mediation program is
still by far the largest in the country, there is room for growth. In 2007, the agency retrained investigators on how to discuss media-
tion with civilians, and will continue to develop plans for growing the program.
Total Number of Mediation Unit Closures January 2004 - June 2007
68
29 31
67
73 59
65
6350 46 44
62 68
51
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jan-Jun2004
July-Dec2004
Jan-Jun2005
July-Dec2005
Jan-Jun2006
July-Dec2006
Jan-Jun2007
Mediationattempted
Mediated
131
79 77
111
135
127116
Page 15
Mediation
SSince 2004, the NYPD has increasingly disciplined officers less frequently and less severely in cases where the CCRB found
misconduct. The CCRB has reported in the past that the rate at which the department imposes “Instructions,” the mildest dis-
ciplinary option available, increased from 26% in the first half of 2004 to 78% in the last half of 2006. Two additional trends have
emerged: since 2005 the department has started bringing fewer and fewer substantiated cases to trial, and, most notably, in the
first half of 2007 it began disposing of a record number of cases without seeking any discipline for the officer. The CCRB is
deeply concerned about these patterns and continues to work with the NYPD in order to address the issue.
The CCRB only sends a case to the NYPD after a board panel has determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an offi-
cer committed misconduct. The chart at left shows the actions the NYPD took in substantiated CCRB cases closed since 2005.
While the department prosecuted forty officers in the
trial room during the first half of 2005, it did so for only
six officers in the first half of 2007. In the first half of
2007, the department declined to seek any discipline
for a record 35 officers that the CCRB found had com-
mitted misconduct.
Over the same time period, the department’s success
rate in the trial room has remained steady. From
January of 2004 through June of 2007, the department
has consistently secured guilty findings in around 30%
of the cases it brings to trial, with the single exception
of the period from January to June of 2006, when the
rate of guilty findings dipped to 14%.
CCRB Status ReportJanuary-June 2007
New York City Police Department Dispositions
Department Disciplinary Actions in Substantiated CCRB Cases
67 6038 31
179
131
143
115
93
35
8
6
61
10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jan-June 2005 July-Dec 2005 Jan-June 2006 July-Dec 2006 Jan-June 2007
Nu
mb
er o
f o
ffic
ers
DepartmentDeclined to SeekDiscipline
DepartmentNegotiatedPenalty
DepartmentBrought Charges
Page 16
“It is in the interest of the people of the city of New York and the New York City police departmentthat the investigation of complaints concerning misconduct by officers of the department towardsmembers of the public be complete, thorough, and impartial. These inquiries must be conductedfairly and independently, and in a manner in which the public and the police department have con-fidence. An independent civilian complaint review board is hereby established as a body com-prised solely of members of the public with the authority to investigate allegations of police mis-conduct. . . .”
New York City Charter, Chapter 18-A
Top Related